Is there really Cause and Effect?

[Thief]

But isn't your body an effect? Isn't your mind also an effect? You can go back and back infinitely and you'll see how everything happening at this moment is due to countless causes. Take any object and you'll see how it has no independent character. A tree depends on the Sun, water, minerals and the seed it sprung from and all these things have countless effects. You can go back to the very creation of this Universe and how you, me and the tree all depend on everything else.

But there is a difference in between things aware and things not so.

In the physical...all things act and react.
For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

I think this thread is an effort to restrict the notion of cause and effect to the physical.

This I suspect is a lean from other threads, that would otherwise include spirit.
As if to leave out the cognitive.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

My main field of study is human behavioural science and, there at least, cause and effect still runs rampant like the little scamp it is!

Do you run or assist in behavioural experiments ever? In particular, do you do so using samples from a university/college population?

But my immediate thought is that something must be causing it even if we don't have the tools to measure that cause, say if it was causality at the quantum level.

At the quantum level, it isn't so much a matter of measurement as it is part of the theoretical construct itself.

 

[Mycroft]

Do you run or assist in behavioural experiments ever? In particular, do you do so using samples from a university/college population?

Yes. I have had many theories over the past which I have put to the test (naturally) and observed the results whilst inviting others to do the same. People tend to be surprised by the results. This is why I say there is no such thing as free-will and so on. One day, when all my work is done, I shall publish it all in one big swathe of human behavioural data.

[/quote]
At the quantum level, it isn't so much a matter of measurement as it is part of the theoretical construct itself.[/quote]

Yes, I understand. The point was merely to illustrate that there should remain the possibility that there is, simply, a cause that cannot yet be measured.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes. I have had many theories over the past which I have put to the test (naturally) and observed the results whilst inviting others to do the same.

Not exactly what I meant. I asked only because there's really only one software package for researchers using college/university samples and I worked on it. I was just going to ask if you had used it, that's all. No big deal.

 

[Mycroft]

Not exactly what I meant. I asked only because there's really only one software package for researchers using college/university samples and I worked on it. I was just going to ask if you had used it, that's all. No big deal.

Oh! I'm not really a computer-centric person. I tend to base all my research in the real world. I'm not attached to a University, so all my work is my own.

 

[PolyHedral]

I have two paired photons 11 kilometers apart. Their spins are correlated, meaning that there is a causal connection between the two. However, we know mathematically that it is impossible for their to be any causal connection between the two without violating special relativity by exceeding the speed of light. Causality requires locality. In order to "cause" some effect, things have to make contact (I can yell at someone from a hundred meters away, but they only turn because of the local effect of sound hitting their ear drum). There is no way for anything to make contact in this case. What causes the correlation?

Causality is inconsistent with modern physics

The local interaction that causes the entanglement in the first place.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The local interaction that causes the entanglement in the first place.

Alas, this has been ruled out as a possible cause. That's (one of) the points of Bell's inequalities.
On an unrelated note, you should drop by more often.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm not well versed in the philosophy of cause and effect. Growing up it seemed like a rather easy to grasp. I do X and I'll get Y. Much of what we do rely on cause and effect, and religion itself especially in Christianity positions God as a Cause and the Universe as an effect.

I've been trying to read up on causality lately and I'll admit it flies over my head, but it seems that the way we "perceive, think, or accept" causality may not be how it actually operates. I've also learned that a lot of things deal more with correlations rather than a singular known cause.

I was hoping someone could clear this up for me, and if a good debate comes out of it as well, the better

Two questions:

What caused you to start this thread?

What has been the effect?


Other stuff:

Water dries in the sun?

or: Water molecules are caused to rise by the heat of the sun.

A tree falls over?

or: A tree falls (effect) when the branches grow in such a way as to change the trees centre of gravity and the roots no longer have enough surface to grasp (cause). OR The wind acts on it to such a degree (cause1) that gravity pulls (cause2) the tree down (effect)


You eat something (effect) when you're hungry (cause2) because your body has used up its energy (cause1)

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Two questions:

What caused you to start this thread?

What has been the effect?


Other stuff:

Water dries in the sun?

or: Water molecules are caused to rise by the heat of the sun.

A tree falls over?

or: A tree falls (effect) when the branches grow in such a way as to change the trees centre of gravity and the roots no longer have enough surface to grasp (cause). OR The wind acts on it to such a degree (cause1) that gravity pulls (cause2) the tree down (effect)


You eat something (effect) when you're hungry (cause2) because your body has used up its energy (cause1)

Right we use these terms rather laymenly, but the reason I was curious about it was due to stumbling across an article that spoke of how people will use Energy and Matter interchangebly though they are not the same thing. So I started wondering, was there really such thing as cause and effect. We certainly assume that there is, and on a large scale it certainly seems so, but how about when we start going deeper and deeper into things.

So even in those examples you give, you can start going into multiple reasons for why the tree started to fall. Indeed not all trees who exhibit the qualities that you mention will actually fall, and some trees that do not exhibit them fall, so there appears to be more than just a simple idea of cause working.

 

[Mycroft]

So even in those examples you give, you can start going into multiple reasons for why the tree started to fall. Indeed not all trees who exhibit the qualities that you mention will actually fall, and some trees that do not exhibit them fall, so there appears to be more than just a simple idea of cause working.

Those multiple reasons would still be causes, though?

Wherever a process begins there is a cause. Wherever the process ends in an outcome there is an effect. No matter what the process is.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Those multiple reasons would still be causes, though?

Wherever a process begins there is a cause. Wherever the process ends in an outcome there is an effect. No matter what the process is.

Right, but when you say "cause" you are usually talking about direct relationship. But is there really a direct relationship? I guess I don't look at it as lines attached to an object but more of vibrations that interact with each other.

 

[Mycroft]

Right, but when you say "cause" you are usually talking about direct relationship. But is there really a direct relationship? I guess I don't look at it as lines attached to an object but more of vibrations that interact with each other.

It doesn't have to be direct. For example HIV is a Direct Cause of AIDS. But indirect causes that facilitate contraction HIV include sharing syringes and promiscuous sexual behaviors.

Burnt skin is a direct cause of excessive heat being applied to the skin. But an indirect cause may be dangerous working conditions with improper safety precautions and equipment leading to burnt skin. Etc.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It doesn't have to be direct. For example HIV is a Direct Cause of AIDS. But indirect causes that facilitate contraction HIV include sharing syringes and promiscuous sexual behaviors.

Burnt skin is a direct cause of excessive heat being applied to the skin. But an indirect cause may be dangerous working conditions with improper safety precautions and equipment leading to burnt skin. Etc.

Right but one can have HIV and never develop AIDs.

And even if the skin is directly exposed to excessive heat, what is happening to cause the skin to gain it's brown appearence. Is it the heat on the skin, or is it the heats reacting with proteins in the skin?

 

[Mycroft]

Right but one can have HIV and never develop AIDs.

And even if the skin is directly exposed to excessive heat, what is happening to cause the skin to gain it's brown appearence. Is it the heat on the skin, or is it the heats reacting with proteins in the skin?

Good question. Would the proteins react without heat? Probably not. But they do, and that protein reaction causes the discoloration as much as the heat does. And this is why there can be more than one cause to a single or multiple effects. And sometimes not even in a a direct cause > effect 1>2>3 order.

Branches grow aberrently (cause) trees centre of gravity changes (effect) roots unable to grasp soil sufficiently (effect) wind blows tree (cause) gravity acts on the tree (cause) the tree falls over (effect).

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Good question. Would the proteins react without heat? Probably not. But they do, and that protein reaction causes the discoloration as much as the heat does. And this is why there can be more than one cause to a single or multiple effects. And sometimes not even in a a direct cause > effect 1>2>3 order.

Branches grow aberrently (cause) trees centre of gravity changes (effect) roots unable to grasp soil sufficiently (effect) wind blows tree (cause) gravity acts on the tree (cause) the tree falls over (effect).

I did public health for my undergrad alongside biology, and we always used to speak to these type of situations (multiple effects) as correlations not causes.

 

[SaudS]

Effects can have many causes.
For example:
- Turn off the switch, the bulb is off.
- Break the bulb, the bulb is off.
- Cut the wire, the bulb is off.

You can have many causes for an effect. In this scenario; assume the switch is X, the current is Y and the lit bulb is Z. For Z to be true, X and Y have to be true. If either X or Y is false, Z is false. Similarly, X and Y are just two examples.

For Z to be true, alot of factors need to be true. For a light bulb to be on, the switch must be on, the wire should be intact, the electricity should not go out, it should not break, the switch should not break etc. As far as these conditions are met, the effect will not differ.

 

[PolyHedral]

Alas, this has been ruled out as a possible cause. That's (one of) the points of Bell's inequalities.
On an unrelated note, you should drop by more often.

The local entanglement interaction isn't the thing that causes the state collapse. It's the thing that allows you to deduce that a state collapse happened at all.

Measuring an entangled system doesn't somehow "force" the other end of the system into any particular state. Instead, you are using your (partial) knowledge of the system to deduce the state, and there is no restriction on deductions.

This is mostly because collapse is in not in the equations at all - it's all entanglement, everywhere.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The local entanglement interaction isn't the thing that causes the state collapse. It's the thing that allows you to deduce that a state collapse happened at all.

"Collapse" is just the name we give to the fact that we get a definite measurement.

Measuring an entangled system doesn't somehow "force" the other end of the system into any particular state.

It seems to do just this, but that's more or less my point. Somehow, measurement in one space affects measurement in another without any possible local cause (or, rather, the measurement outcomes are not causally independent yet there is no local cause). Nonlocal causality is essentially acausality as causality is defined as being local in space and time.

Instead, you are using your (partial) knowledge of the system to deduce the state, and there is no restriction on deductions.

Bell's inequality is a way to proof that there cannot be any local causes given particular kinds of measurement results. We've had these results since the early 80s and they have been demonstrated on systems separated by kilometers.

This is mostly because collapse is in not in the equations at all - it's all entanglement, everywhere.

Collapse is in the equations. It's fundamental to them. There is no observable without a collapse. All of quantum mechanics is about telling us that given x "collapsed" state, the system was in state y.

 

[PolyHedral]

It seems to do just this, but that's more or less my point. Somehow, measurement in one space affects measurement in another without any possible local cause. Nonlocal causality is essentially acausality as causality is defined as being local in space and time.

The cause for the correlation is the entangling. No entangling = no correlation.

Bell's inequality is a way to proof that there cannot be any local causes given particular kinds of measurement results. We've had these results since the early 80s and they have been demonstrated on systems separated by kilometers.

Bell's inequality only rules out local hidden variables. Entangling is not a local hidden variable, its a global one. (Because at the fundamental level, QM talks about global states of the universe and how they lead into each other.)

 

[Ouroboros]

The cause for the correlation is the entangling. No entangling = no correlation.

No entangling = no shoestrings.